TWoK wrote:
Um, no, it's sort of not. There is certainly a standard developing time for all C-41 film shot at it's native speed. There is also pushing and pulling guidelines which require DIFFERENT development times.
Fair enough, I absolutely don't claim to know everything. I never used C-41 film up to this point (always processed my own black and white, and my color was always E-6) I thought it a strange concept to be able to effectively change the EI mid-roll but I had read a number of different reports stating it was possible.
I also read the Ilford tech-data on XP2 (which I'm using currently) - http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/201142711321939.pdf - and unless I mis-interpreted it, it sounded like even they said you didn't have to change processing times.
So I apologize if I'm sounding like a nut-job, I'm just getting back into film after a 7+ year hiatus and I'm doing a lot of experimenting.
So far my experience with XP2 is that changing the EI mid-roll doesn't seem to have any negative effect on the film with standard processing.
I tried the same with Portra 400 and while I still need to scan the rest of the frames (none of it was terribly interesting, mostly a test roll) so far my method works on this film too.
TWoK wrote:
It was damaged by hand-scanners? Please post some pictures, I'd love to see the damage.
Also, I'm very interested to see the Portra 400 results.
Actually they outright REFUSED to hand check my film. They ran several rolls of Neopan 1600 and Delta 3200 through the x-ray machine. Every airport on this trip did this! Even at the Empire State Building they have an X-Ray machine and they did the same. It was a nightmare.
Once I finish going through the Portra roll I'll post anything that looks decent (it was a test roll haha)
AbramG wrote:
Actually they outright REFUSED to hand check my film. They ran several rolls of Neopan 1600 and Delta 3200 through the x-ray machine. Every airport on this trip did this! Even at the Empire State Building they have an X-Ray machine and they did the same. It was a nightmare.
Once I finish going through the Portra roll I'll post anything that looks decent (it was a test roll haha)
Yeah, very few places will hand check your film. It's not necessary anyway. As far as I am concerned hand baggage scanners will NEVER damage your film. This isn't true for the much stronger checked baggage scanners.
All of my mail is x-rayed, just like at a prison. No issues there either.
sirimiri wrote:
Abram, what did you rate that Delta at? It has enviable tone and contrast, for Delta "3200" in my opinion.
It was rated at box speed. I did no processing outside of scanning the negative and some mild sharpening. I developed these myself though I don't remember what I did exactly.
I was in school at the time and for the most part we were discouraged from using specialty films like this, for our assignments we pretty much had to stick to Tri-X and Provia.
I wanted to try some other films on that trip and I didn't really think about the downsides to shooting such high speed film in daylight (a novice mistake)
I tell you what though. Seeing my old 6x7 negatives really makes me miss medium format in general.
I'm considering trading off all my FD gear to try and get an RZ again or maybe even a Pentax 67.
I'll shoot 35mm on the 1N I just picked up (makes sense because of all the EOS glass I have)
I concur with Twok, my lab-dev'o'd Delta "3200" always has less tonal range and higher contrast than that. There's a PSA for self-developing film if there ever was one.
I was in school at the time and for the most part we were discouraged from using specialty films like this, for our assignments we pretty much had to stick to Tri-X and Provia.
I grew to hate that film. I refuse to use it anymore lol.
I much prefer Fuji Acros 100.
Quick opinion question. Obviously I'm quite interested in getting an RZ again, but then I had the thought about the Fuji GW670III. I've never used one, or let alone even held one. It's fixed lens which is a bummer, but it happens to be the focal length I would use the most (90mm) I also am a big big fan of 6x7 over other medium format sizes.
Does anyone have any experiences with these? Worth getting?
AbramG wrote:
So far my experience with XP2 is that changing the EI mid-roll doesn't seem to have any negative effect on the film with standard processing.
The effect (negative or not) is that you get less or more density on the negs than you're supposed to, at the standard development time. Which means that if you underexpose (higher ISO than box speed), you'll get thin negs and thus more noise from the scanner when applying a contrast curve to get the final image look well exposed. Overexposure will yield dense negs which can be very hard to scan without blowing the highlights, but in return you'll get excellent tonality in the shadows.
Push and pull is essentially underexposure and overexposure with adjusted development times to get normal density negatives. However, the film will handle different exposures quite good (with some exceptions) and you will get a usable image at several stops overexposure or underexposure even with normal development.
There's no need to change the ISO dial if you're not gonna shoot the whole roll for that speed. It makes no difference from just not following the meter reading. The ISO is still what the box says as long as you don't adjust the development (which of course can't be made for a single frame on the roll).
Makten wrote:
The effect (negative or not) is that you get less or more density on the negs than you're supposed to, at the standard development time. Which means that if you underexpose (higher ISO than box speed), you'll get thin negs and thus more noise from the scanner when applying a contrast curve to get the final image look well exposed. Overexposure will yield dense negs which can be very hard to scan without blowing the highlights, but in return you'll get excellent tonality in the shadows.
Push and pull is essentially underexposure and overexposure with adjusted development times to get normal density negatives. However, the film will handle different exposures quite good (with some exceptions) and you will get a usable image at several stops overexposure or underexposure even with normal development.
There's no need to change the ISO dial if you're not gonna shoot the whole roll for that speed. It makes no difference from just not following the meter reading. The ISO is still what the box says as long as you don't adjust the development (which of course can't be made for a single frame on the roll)....Show more →
Ok that makes a lot more sense than my interpretation. Thank you for taking the time to explain that. I guess I'll keep doing what I'm doing, for the time being seeing as how the film is so flexible to handle the over or under exposure with some positive results.
One of these days I'll try shooting an entire roll at a different EI and get push or pull processing from my local lab and compare the differences.
Again, thanks guys for talking about all these details with me, I'm having a lot of fun shooting film again, and learning a lot along the way.
AbramG wrote:
Ok so despite the format difference (I don't mind 6x7 one bit) they're still the same camera and you feel that they are worthwhile, yes?
Yes, the 670 just has part of the fram masked out an the other necessary bits changed. These are VERY, very good cameras. I really enjoy them. The GW has a much nicer finder because of the higher magnification than the GSW.
AbramG wrote:
So far my experience with XP2 is that changing the EI mid-roll doesn't seem to have any negative effect on the film with standard processing.
I tried the same with Portra 400 and while I still need to scan the rest of the frames (none of it was terribly interesting, mostly a test roll) so far my method works on this film too.
You can do this with most good quality C-41 film, like stuff from Kodak and Fuji. It's the 'film latitude'. When you look at Kodak's pages, you'll se that most of their color negative film has a latitude of -1/+2 or -1/+3 stops. That means for the most part you can underexpose by a stop or overexpose by 2 or 3 stops and still get a 'useable' negative with normal development. The quality won't be quite as good as if you shot it at box speed (or a bit over), i.e. shadows might be a bit noisy if underexposed, etc. But for the most part, perfectly useable. Combined with some processing in Photoshop, you can get very nice images if you tame the contrast or lack thereof in your images.
You can even get away with doing this with a lot of B&W films, especially if you are scanning.
As far as Delta 3200 goes, if it's anything like TMZ, I'd say home development is necessary to obtain good photos. But once you get the process down, and you give your photos proper exposure, you can get really high quality results out of these films. I love TMZ - great stuff.
AbramG wrote:
Good to hear! Especially coming from you, your work is just awesome!
I'm talking with a buddy right now to see if he wants to work out an even trade.
Oh - Is it true it has the most atrocious shutter sound? I recall someone mentioning that at some-point haha
The shutter is loud, that's for sure. Some say it's the frame counter, it's not. Either way the camera is just spectacular. I'd be surprised if you didn't enjoy it.
(it was a test roll haha)
